Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Boosts Spectrum Available To Wi-Fi

Posted by samzenpus on from the greased-lightning dept.

bbsguru (586178) writes "Wi-Fi networks will soon be improving thanks to a vote by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) today. The FCC voted unanimously to open 100 MHz of wireless spectrum in an unlicensed 5GHz block . The move will increase the number of frequencies available to unlicensed wireless networks (such as those set up through Wi-Fi routers) by nearly 15 percent, and in turn, allow them to handle a greater level of traffic at higher speeds. 'Today's action represents the largest amount of spectrum suitable for mobile broadband that the Commission has made available for auction since the 700MHz band was auctioned in 2008,' the FCC wrote in a statement. 'Access to these bands will help wireless companies meet growing consumer demand for mobile data by enabling faster wireless speeds and more capacity.' The increased spectrum should mean that Wi-Fi networks will be less congested, and next-gen routers will be able to take better advantage of gigabit broadband speeds that are cropping up all over the country."

11 of 73 comments (clear)

  1. Spectrum Frequency by Goetterdaemmerung · · Score: 5, Informative

    The newly available spectrum is 5150-5250 MHz.

    1. Re:Spectrum Frequency by beheaderaswp · · Score: 2

      As long as they stay out of the Amateur microwave bands... they can have all they want (self interest).

      However, this release of spectrum is not nearly enough to mitigate the problems found in urban areas. The bands need to be widened a lot more.

      --
      Another consultant who stuck it out.

      "We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
    2. Re:Spectrum Frequency by RoadKill · · Score: 2

      Why is this touted as "newly available"? This is not new spectrum, just loosened restrictions on usage. The FCC notice on their web site says that a restriction was removed on indoor use only and increased power is available. I just checked and my consumer-grade wifi router is using 5200MHz right now.

    3. Re:Spectrum Frequency by timeOday · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure how you can say wifi is "awfully wasteful" with a straight face. Ignoring MIMO (which can double or triple the spectral efficiency), 802.11n achieves 3.61 bits/second/Hz which is right on par with other consumer wireless standards.

      N is new and good. So the only way to do what the GP suggests is forcing older, less efficient devices off the air. "Cash for clunker APs!" or something. I'm not saying whether that's a great idea - but this new spectrum allocation adds 15%, whereas 802.11b is up to 100 times slower than ac.

    4. Re:Spectrum Frequency by morgauxo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Personally my favorite way to increase efficiency has been around a long time... ETHERNET!! Don't get me wrong, I use WiFi for things that NEED WiFi (ChromeCast, laptops carried to strange places, visiting friends that want to use their Sprint (shitty network) smartphones, etc...). But.. for stationary things that can do ethernet... it's no contest, ethernet for the win!! With a little creativity you CAN find a place to run the cable and it IS worth it!

    5. Re:Spectrum Frequency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes.

      What the GP probably means is increasing the constellation size. But increasing the constellation size requires a better SNR in the channel, which typically means increasing power, for example, to go from QAM256 to QAM1024, (8 bits/symbols to 10bits/symbol) requires 3dB better SNR, which in turn means doubling the transmit power, or somehow reducing the channel noise floor, for example, by using higher gain receive side antenna, or a lower noise detector.

      Of course, the best advance we have made is MIMO, which is a form of spatial division multiplexing, allowing encoding symbols in space as well as amplitude. Technically it is a partially correlated matrix encoding.

    6. Re:Spectrum Frequency by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Fortunately 802.11b doesn't support 5GHz so there is no chance of it slowing down devices operating in that band. 802.11a is pretty rare.

      Hopefully 802.11n was designed well enough to not screw up faster protocols as they become available. I get good speed from 802.11ac but there are no other APs on those channels near me.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  2. Re:Aren't most wireless networks still on 2.4Ghz? by rasmusbr · · Score: 5, Informative

    One reason why you've never seen an area saturated with 5 GHz signals is that they don't penetrate walls and other obstacles as easily as 2.4 GHz signals. This is either good or bad depending on what you want to achieve, but having more spectrum is never bad!

  3. We need more at 2.4ghz by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Open up 5 more channels at the top end of the 2.4ghz.. They use them in the EU (and in my home.... bite me FCC) to give everyone a lot more room instead of suffering with the 3 useable ones we have here.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:We need more at 2.4ghz by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Believe me, as someone who lives in Europe from time to time it won't really help. You will have a couple of years where old devices are not using those channels before they get saturated too.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  4. 23 years later and we get it! by flatulus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'd like to take a moment to memorialize a pioneer in this pursuit that probably none of you ever heard of. The name is Jim Lovette. Jim worked with me at Apple in the early 90's. He was a heart-and-soul devotee to the democratization of RF bandwidth for high speed data communications. With Jim's leadership, Apple drafted a petition to the FCC, known as Data-PCS. This was a proposal to allocate spectrum in the U.S. exclusively for use in data communications (as opposed to "voice only" which was the vogue at the time). The Data-PCS petition caused a lot of excitement, but did not result in anything earthshaking as an outcome. Still it started a movement of which this latest step is a grand one in the pursuit of "computing devices talking to each other" being equally important to "people talking to each other." Jim (and our team) were also early promoters of wireless LAN, which we all know today as WiFi. The IEEE 802.11 committee had just formed. Apple's early foray into wireless LAN preceded the availability of IEEE 802.11 (aka WiFi) products, and never made it to market. Apple chose instead to introduce their first wireless LAN products as 802.11b (11 Mbit/sec) WiFi. And over 20 years later, look what it has become?

    Jim passed away in 2002, leaving us with a legacy of which few outside the cloistered Wireless LAN industry would even know he contributed so much. Thank you, Jim.